Stanz v. Brown
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed an ex parte motion by Higgs Fletcher & Mack to withdraw as counsel for multiple defendants based on a breach of the engagement agreement. The court ordered the defendants to file a response within one week stating whether they object to the withdrawal and how they intend to retain substitute counsel.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order to file response to motion to withdraw as counsel“the Court ORDERS Defendants to file a response expressing whether they have objections to the ex parte motion and whether and how they intend to retain substitute counsel.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the defendants' failure to respond prevented a full inquiry into the factors required for withdrawal, particularly the potential prejudice to the corporate defendants who must proceed with counsel. Ordering a response is a standard procedural step to ensure due process and allow the court to make an informed decision on the motion. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the factors from In re Saber to determine that a response is necessary before ruling on the motion to withdraw, especially given the corporate status of the defendants and the potential prejudice to their claims. The order is concise and directly addresses the procedural deficiency (lack of response) preventing a full inquiry.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Plaintiff AARON STANZ, individually Case No.: 3:22-cv-01164-GPC-JLB and derivatively on behalf of Jet Genius 12 Holdings, Inc., ORDER TO FILE RESPONSE TO 13 MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS Plaintiff, COUNSEL 14 v. 15 [ECF No. 179] Defendants JORDAN BROWN; et al., 16 Defendants, 17 18 and 19 JET GENIUS HOLDINGS, INC., 20 Nominal Defendant. 21 22 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.3(f)(3), the law firm of Higgs Fletcher & Mack, 23 and all attorneys associated with it including Sean M. Sullivan and Justin M. Martin 24 (“Movant”), filed an ex parte motion to withdraw as counsel for Defendants Bowman 25 Aviation, Inc., Jet Agency Global LLC, C3 Limo LLC, Jordan Brown, Jet Genius 26 Holdings, Inc., Jet Genius Florida Holdings, Inc., C3 Jets LLC (“Defendants”), on 27 1 || grounds that Defendants did not meet the material terms of the Engagement Agreement, 2 permitting withdrawal under Rule 1.16(b)(5) of California’s Rules of Professional 3 |}Conduct. ECF No. 179. 4 Defendants have yet to file their own response to this motion. In considering a 5 || motion to withdraw as counsel, the Court must account for several factors, including 6 || whether the motion is opposed or joined by the party in question and the harm that 7 || withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice. See In re Saber, No. 21-55913, 8 2022 WL 11592836, at *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2022). Most Defendants in this case are 9 || corporate entities, and they must proceed with counsel; the time to retain replacement 10 counsel may prejudice their claims. Defendants’ lack of response prevents the Court 11 || from engaging in a fulsome inquiry on these factors and more. 12 Having considered the motion, and in light of the issues regarding the derivative 13 |}claims, the Court ORDERS Defendants to file a response expressing whether they have 14 || objections to the ex parte motion and whether and how they intend to retain substitute 15 |}counsel. This response shall be due within one week of this Order. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: January 7, 2025 18 Hon. athe Cae 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3:22-cv-01164-GPC-JLB